The other controversial aspect of the Bill was the provision which prohibits the institution of any civil or criminal proceedings against the State, the State President, the Defence Minister, a member of the SA Defence Force, or any other person in the service of the State in respect of any action ordered or taken by them in connection with the suppression of terrorism in any operational area. This clause, which appears to be almost as widely cast as recent similar legislation in Rhodesia granting indemnity to government employees, was justified by the Defence Minister by reference to "an incident in the past which caused great uncertainty and anxiety in the minds of soldiers doing duty on the border." He did not elaborate, but went on to say that operational commitments did not allow for soldiers to be withdrawn from their duties to attend judicial inquiries into the deaths through unnatural causes of persons killed in the process of combatting terrorism. Neither was it advisable to subject soldiers to the worry of a possible criminal prosecution of civil process for acts done in good faith and in the execution of their duties.
The Bill, which completed its 3rd reading by 9 February, also provides for innocent parties to be compensated for damage suffered in connection with activities relating to the suppression of terrorism. Claimants have to apply to the Minister of Defence, and whether compensation is granted or not the Minister has to refer the application to a compensation board for consideration and recommendations.
